Talk:Lemelson Capital Management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Barron's ranking[edit]

The Barron's ranking is referenced in multiple media sources, including ValueWalk [1], Seeking Alpha [2], HFG [3], and elsewhere. Orthodox2014 (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Source 1 and source 3 are quoting a press release from Lemelson Capital Management, so don't really count for much. Source 2 (Seeking Alpha) at least stands by its own statement, so maybe is okay to verify the fact. No need for the other two IMO. On the whole, even if Amvona Fund is a product of Lemelson Capital Management, this article should concentrate on the reportage about Lemelson Capital Management. Sionk (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Each of these three references (and others not included) independently report on the multiple top rankings by Barron's. Orthodox2014 (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
On what basis do you say "independently"? And how are these reliably sourced? It is not clear to me how these "sources" are materially different from me saying "Barrons, Barrons, Barrons" on my user page here. Kindly elucidate. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Sure. They are three financial media outlets, secondary in nature, that report on its Barron's ranking. Orthodox2014 (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
We only require multiple sources for exceptional claims. Barron's is, I believe, reliable and independent enough not to require additional references for the same fact (though I'm not expert in this field so may be wrong). The same is probably the case for many of the other multiple references in the article too.
Also, per this section of the Verifiability policy, consensus can determine that certain information does not improve an article and should not be included. I submit for discussion that the precise details of the three interventions (is that the right word?) are not necessary in this article and should be severely pruned. Instead, more information should be provided about the history of the firm and its other activities, particularly what independent reliable sources have said about it - to produce a more well-rounded article. I'm sure there are FA and/or GA articles on similar topics that can be compared for compliance with our house style.  —SMALLJIM  23:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to remove all non-reliable sourcing and associated content from this article[edit]

There is edit warring between article creator and other editors (myself included). I propose the following:

  1. Any reference to a source that does not have a WP article to be subject to immediate removal, without recourse unless a talk page discussion here decides otherwise.
  2. No primary sources to this entity or any related entity shall be considered reliable with respect to this article.
  3. Any content in this article that is not supported by a source with a WP article, or that has otherwise been agreed on this talk page, to be deleted.
  4. All of the foregoing applies to direct sourcing--random web sources or press releases that claim that reliable sources have said such and such are worthless--if we are not getting it directly, then it is worthless. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It's at Articles for Deletion. I'd suggest holding back on major clean-up during the discussion period.
One of the difficulties with this article (and Emmanuel Lemelson) are the serious problems of over-citation. This could either be a misunderstanding of the use of sources/inline citations by the author, or a deliberate attempt to cloud the issues. Two citations were being re-added on the basis they cited Gregory Lemelson was an "activist", while on closer inspection one source didn't mention the word Lemelson at all and the other only briefly reported on something Emmanuel Lemelson had done (no mention of "activist"). In any case, this is about Emmanuel Lemelson not his company, so I'm not going to waste my time fighting over it. Overall there's lots of synthesis of words said here and there to dubiously construct a fact.
So yes, Hobbes, you are correct to say that most of the sources do not say a lot (or anything) about Lemelson Capital Management, which is the main reason I nom'd the article for AfD. Sionk (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Normally, I would agree about holding back, but with relevant editor, normal does not apply. Full rules apply every damn step of the way to the gallows. Truth, or the abyss--now. TRUTH! VERIFIABLE! Do I really have to wheel out the relevant Jimmy quotes? I (and I hope WP) do not consent to this BS. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, the WP:CITEKILL needs addressing regardless of the AfD outcome so there's always scope for scrutinising the sources. FWIW I think Seeking Alpha (used abundantly as a source) has a small amount of editorial oversight. The problem is that sometimes the author of the article is not independent of LCM (i.e. Amvona). Sionk (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I have removed a number of references that, to your point, did seem redundant. Orthodox2014 (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Specifically what reference failed to mention Lemelson? I used great care in sourcing the references. Orthodox2014 (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, we had a dispute about two of them yesterday which you were using to support the single word "activist". Neither used the word "activist" and one didn't mention the word Lemelson! Sionk (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Would you please provide the specific link to whichever reference did not mention him? You are wrong about that. Both mentioned him prominently (one even in the headline) and both referenced his activism on housing-related policy issues. Orthodox2014 (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

JOBS equals advertising[edit]

We have a problem with advertising here. The US Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (or JOBS Act) that came into effect in April 2012 allows the general solicitation of private funds. According to an article in HFMweek (26 Sep - 1 Oct 2014, page 20), Lemelson Capital Management has been one of the few hedge fund companies to sign up to the Act. To quote from the HFMweek article:

Under the new rules, managers can talk to the media more freely, engage in discussions on social media and at events, upgrade their websites to provide more information and advertise more generally.


One Boston-based lawyer says he’s seen limited take-up from a couple of smaller managers. “They are two smaller hedge fund managers really trying to raise capital and be more aggressive through press releases, newspaper ads and the media,” he says.

Massachusets-registered Lemelson Capital Management is among these firms. Chief investment officer Emmanuel Lemelson says he saw the Jobs Act as an opportunity to speak freely “without having to choose every word carefully”.

“We were getting good results and I thought why don’t we publicise that?” he adds. The firm now sends out press releases on its performance and had secured four interviews with the press that week.

This indicates that the flurry of media attention around Lemelson and his hedge fund over the last few years has been generated mainly through his own promotional efforts. The media reporting is therefore skewed in the company's favour, since unfavourable topics (like this, for example) will be under-reported. This casts doubt on the value of most of the sources used in the article and has led the article away from neutrality.

Also, since Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising we must be very careful to ensure that we are not helping to promote Emmanuel Lemelson or his hedge fund ourselves. I think this article needs a severe pruning, both in its content and its references. Once that's done, we should then consider whether what remains is enough to show if the company is notable enough to have an article.  —SMALLJIM  14:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I started with Seeking Alpha. They have two types of content: self-published blogs which anyone can publish who sign up for an account; and "SA News Editor" posts by SA news editors. The first are unreliable, the second are reliable. I removed the self-published blog posts and kept the News Editor posts. -- GreenC 20:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Went through and checked every source and what they cited. Removed redundant sources in most cases as the additional sources added nothing and were usually shorter and less content. A few cases kept redundant sources as each are long and add something. Most of the ValueWalk links are press releases as they take PR format (eg. a section at the bottom with a disclaimer, "About Lemelson", contact info) - further verified by searching on a portion of the text and finding the same article on PRNewsWire. Removed a few dead links which wouldn't have added much even if active. Couple other changes noted in edit comments. In all only needed to add two "cite needed". -- GreenC 21:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Added a section on the Forbes article by Gara and Home Loan Servicing Solutions. Wikipedia is agnostic if a trade is profitable or not, only if it's been reported in the news. -- GreenC 22:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Response: I'm not familiar with the JOBS Act, but I see no basis in reading about it now for it having any impact on content or references. Like the media from any company or organization, secondary sources (newspapers and other media outlets) are secondary sources and primary references are primary references. And again, there is nothing in any of the site's policies here that suggests that references become less notable or usable by this or that industry or based on the existence of this or that regulation. You seem to have a habit of essentially creating your own policies. Orthodox2014 (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Assuming that you're referring to me, I'd rather say that I try to cultivate the habit of considering the important principles that the words of our policies strive to capture. The same is true of GreenC, of course. Your inability to do that is (assuming good faith) just further evidence that you need to get some more experience, as Doncram suggested to you yesterday on your talk page.  —SMALLJIM  00:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
(ec) Thanks for looking into this so quickly, GreenC, I didn't expect such a fast response! I don't know if you've looked at the list of refs in 2014's AfD: Ortho did make some reasonable points about the validity of some of them, though not with the above issue in mind, of course.
Your evaluation of the references makes it easier to move on to the second step which is to consider the effect of the article as a whole: does it read like an advert for the fund? I think it still does because it provides detailed information about how L made money from individual companies, which can be seen as an invitation to see how clever he is and how he could do the same for your money. It isn't the sort of detail that's normally included in similar articles - look at Category:Hedge funds. I think we should be reducing the detail here to what is the standard: generic details about the company, its management, fund size, notes of major events, awards (e.g. awarded Fund of the Year by a reputable source, not not that it just happened to be top in a few months), etc. And if that information isn't confirmed by enough reliable independent sources that are not likely to have been published as a result of a vigorous publicity campaign, then we should AfD it again (I'm not sure either way about that yet).
With that in mind, I'm not too sure about your addition of the Forbes thing written by Gara. I didn't mention it above with the intention that it should be added to the article, merely that it was an example of the kind of thing that L wouldn't publicise, thereby illustrating the skewing effect that a publicity campaign can have. In itself the incident hardly seems worth mentioning and, as far as I know, there was no further commentary about it, unlike the Copeland article in the WSJ.
Overall, we must aim for balance. If the only coverage is favourable coverage that we know has been engendered by publicity with little or nothing to counteract it, then we shouldn't include the favourable coverage, because we're then presenting an unbalanced view, without telling our readers that it is unbalanced. All IMHO, of course – what do you think?  —SMALLJIM  23:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


May I propose, as I did on the Emmanuel Lemelson page, that all the references from this page should be included here for individual evaluation. Before they began being illogically removed in bulk, this version seems to be inclusive of them: [4]. As just one example, in reviewing one of the first ones that GreenCardaMom removed today, it's a USA Today article almost exclusively about the impact of Lemelson's activism on WWE and other stocks: "Lemelson made news earlier this month when the investment firm said pro wrestling firm World Wrestling Entertainment was way overvalued, sending the shares down more than 35%." That statement is important as a reference for the impact of Lemelson's activism on WWE share prices. Link to that USA Today article (which was removed) is here: [5]. As a second example of this reckless editing, the Fox Business News reference removed today at 21:19 is removed with an edit note that the link doesn't work. In checking the link, it works fine. See here: [6].

I also have great concerns about Smalljim's proposal here that references be removed and then the article's notability assessed. You can't remove major references and then contend the article is insufficiently referenced and/or not notable. That assessment needs to be made with the inclusion of appropriate references (which it was when Smalljim originally voted to delete in June 2014. The community rejected that deletion nomination. Orthodox2014 (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Notability is not assessed by what's in the article, rather a topic is notable regardless if the source is an article or not. Should it ever go to AfD (and I honestly am not sure if it should) all references are on the table. -- GreenC 23:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
"illogically removed in bulk" .. not only were they not removed "in bulk" they were carefully documented in over a dozen edit summaries + talk page explanations. Regarding USA today, here is the edit summary. The source barely mentions in passing the wrestling story as a byline at the bottom of the article. The source isn't verifying anything said in our article (not already verified by the other article). The Fox News video doesn't work in my browser so that's a local problem, can add that back. -- GreenC 23:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
"GreenCardaMom" .. it's "Cardamom" as in Cardamom. -- GreenC 23:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Orthodox2014, just a quick query on one point for now: the Fox Business News video works here too. Why was it was worth adding to the sentence (or paragraph) you attached it to?  —SMALLJIM  00:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
It was used as a reference for the short position of Sketchers. It should be placed back in. Can you do that? Orthodox2014 (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Umm, the interviewer saying as an aside "by the way, you're also shorting Skechers" at 1m 54s makes it a worthwhile reference? In addition to the text one that's already there? Have consideration for your readers! It's almost as if you want to force people to gaze into Lemelson's hypnotic eyes and be swayed by his soothing voice :) By the way, it is back in: I'll take it out. (This is temporarily ignoring the big issue of advertising issues, by the way).  —SMALLJIM  01:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Response: If you're going to remove Fox Business News videos as references on this website, you have a lot of work to do. It's a primary financial media source and, yes, it's a broadcast outlet, and that's fine. It should be included as a major secondary reference for the Sketchers section. Orthodox2014 (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it's late, but you just made me laugh anyway. Thanks - 'night! BTW it's "Skechers"...  —SMALLJIM  01:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


I see a number of serious problems with this paragraph you've added, based on the one reference you've included for it.

  • First, the opening sentence states wrongly that Lemelson "publicized in Forbes a short trade for Home Loan Servicing." What does that mean? He took out an advertisement? The article actually states that he "publicized to Forbes" and that's further defined in the article as having emailed Forbes. That sentence should be removed. It's covered more accurately in the second sentence anyway.
  • Second, you write that he "bought" the stock. In reading the reference, however, it states at least ten times that he shorted the stock. Are you aware there's like a 180 degree difference between those two things? Do you understand the difference between buying and shorting a stock? Nowhere in the entire article does it state that he bought this stock. What's the basis for you using the verb "bought" when it's not anywhere in the article?
  • Third, you write that Lemelson was "unaware" of the cash distribution. But the author clearly states that he "speculated" that he was "apparently unaware." Nowhere does it state, as you've written, that he definitively was unaware.
  • Fourth, you write that this distribution would "wipe out the profit and result in a loss of the trade." But that also doesn't appear in the reference. The Forbes article closes with that question, but never states whether it paid off.
  • Fifth, you write that he "did not respond" to the reporter's question about whether he was responsible for the fee. But (once again) nowhere in the accompanying reference does it say anything about him refusing to respond. It says that he had not (as of the article's publication date) responded to an email, but also says that he "politely" asked that the questions be emailed to him.
  • Sixth, you write that "there was no way Lemelson could avoid paying the fee." But the article actually says that there's no way to avoid the distribution if you "own" the shares, and the reporter reaffirms like ten times throughout the article that he was "short" the stock (which means he didn't own it). Do you have any other source that supports your statement that he owned the stock or for any of the other inaccurate things you've written in this paragraph? The article you reference offers no definitive answer to whether the short position was or was not profitable, and the reporter himself raises the question without answering it. But you took the liberty to answer it, writing the section in a way to conclude that he owned the stock (when the article says repeatedly he was short it) and that he incurred the fee (when the article states that the fee would only be applicable if the stock was owned).

When I use the word "reckless" in defining your edits, which you challenge above, these are prime examples of the sort of thing I'm referencing. In the rush you and Smalljim apparently have to try to depict the subject negatively, you're apparently very willing to literally invent facts. You've written as facts a good number of things here that are not only unreferenced but are completely contradicted in the reference you cite. I'm going to make the corrections to this section so that the facts in it correlate with the reference you've offered, but the reference itself is so speculative and inconclusive on the underlying facts that I'm not sure the paragraph really warrants any inclusion at all. Orthodox2014 (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that GreenC has already packed up for today, I'll save you the angst and remove it myself. But not primarily for the reasons you set out. @Green Cardamom: see my earlier post – hope you understand!  —SMALLJIM  01:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I see no justification for the personal attack-type accusations made here by Orthodox2014. Rubbish, absolutely, that anyone has an agenda to depict firm negatively. I am inclined towards seeking a topic ban for this editor. This most recent of way too many attacks. --doncram 05:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Response: I understand, Doncram, that you likely have not the time to review all of the edits of Smalljim on this and the other page, but let me walk through a few facts:
1.) I have not personally attacked anyone on this or any other page. I have pointed with specificity errors and what I see as a POV-style of editing designed to disparage the subjects. Additionally, since my very first edits, any content that I've added to these pages has been fully and properly referenced. On the other hand, other editors have repeatedly included flatly inaccurate content. Your comments about the outrageously inaccurate Home Loan Servicing section are not an aberration. They are just the latest in a series of these inaccurate edits designed to depict the subject in a negative light.
2.) On the other hand, here are some of the hugely POV-oriented, personal attacks on the subject made by Smalljim that point to the broad biases he is bringing to his edits. Are the following indicative of a neutral editor?
a.) On December 30, 2015, Smalljim writes that the subject "isn't as divine or important" as I have depicted him. I've never used any adjectives in describing the subject. He has and does routinely.
b.) On January 6, 2016, Smalljim referred to the subject as a "prolific self-promoter." I'm not even sure what that means and see no evidence of it. It's another hugely biased judgment, unless Smalljim knows him personally. And even if he does, the subject seems to function like most companies and firms do, periodically announcing major developments relevant to its constituencies.
c.) On January 14, 2016, Smalljim writes, in response to me including a Fox Business News video reference, that I "want to force people to gaze into Lemelson's hypnotic eyes and be swayed by his soothing voice."
All of these are violations of BLP, which says: "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." This BLP policy also states (second paragraph) that: "We must get the article right." While I've pointed out that removal of substantive content and references and addition of inaccurate content has been inconsistent with this, my comments for the most part linger unanswered on these talk pages. Even now, you'll notice, there are numerous questions and concerns that I've raised on both talk pages that just go routinely unanswered. I have no confidence that the error-ridden section added on Home Loan Servicing would have been corrected.
Finally, Smalljim seems to have the singular goal of removing content and references (all notable) and then attempting to make an argument that there are insufficient references and content to justify the subjects' notability. In fact, he explains that this is his strategy in his January 13, 2016, 14:57 edit: " I think this article needs a severe pruning, both in its content and its references. Once that's done, we should then consider whether what remains is enough to show if the company is notable enough to have an article." Another example: He writes on July 16, 2014 at 17:13 that all the content on the five specific stocks belongs on the personal page. He then later goes on, of course, to say it doesn't belong on the personal page but on the LCM page. This ongoing process is focused on removing all of the content entirely. So, for instance, if (as he wrote on July 16), the content of those five stocks belongs on the personal page, why is he now removing it there? It's obviously core to both the notability of the firm and the person. As it relates to the personal pages, in fact, here are some examples of other pages and finance leaders that have been handled exactly this way:
Bill Ackman: All of his activist investing efforts and references included in his "Career" section.
Carl Icahn: All of his activist investing efforts and references included in his "Business acquisition and investment timeline" section.
David Einhorn: All of his activist investing efforts and references included in his "Notable marketplays" section.
Daniel Loeb: All of his activist investing efforts and references included as stand-alone sections in the article.
Finally, despite all of these personal, POV-oriented attacks on the subject, the inclusion of fundamentally inaccurate content designed to depict the subject negatively, and the removal of core content areas central to the :biographies, I have always been open to hearing and addressing others' perspectives on the pages and still remain committed to collaborative edits. 16:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Orthodox2014, the nature of Wikipedia is WP:BRD - I made a bold edit, you reverted, now we discuss (though nothing to discuss as I won't pursue the section for now per Smalljim, but most of the points can be easily addressed). However your Bad Faith attacks of "reckless" editor, "try to depict the subject negatively" (the Forbes article is titled "The WSJ's Hedge Fund Priest Has A Terrible Trade Under His Robe" ie. it's a negative article) .. is part of a behavioral pattern typical of someone with a COI. You have been unable to say where you obtained Lemelson's schools and parents' names, which is not public knowledge (see #2 here). -- GreenC 16:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Response: I also believe in bold edits and hope you can respect my right to edit in that way. But boldness also has to be tempered by a commitment to accuracy, especially as it relates to BLP. That BLP page also states that second and third references are required for negative material. But even if you dismissed that, I read the reference you included and you misread it in about half a dozen ways. I'd call that reckless but use whatever words you prefer, I suppose. I'll also find out where the schools and parents are referenced. I think they were from his online biography. Add citation needed, or remove them, until I can find that source. Orthodox2014 (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


I've started to rewrite/clean-up this article based on the information I've collected while editing Emmanuel Lemelson. I've not got far yet, hence the 'under construction' tag. Collaborative edits are welcome, of course!  —SMALLJIM  00:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


The old activism keeps popping up.. the investment section is partly titled "activism", and previously listed activism for WWE and K&S, but with the recent edit the activism has been removed. Activism is when an investor uses an investment position in a public company to cause action within the company eg. new corporate policies, staff changes (new CEO) etc.. it is different from causing the share price of a company to change. Activism used by be called "corporate raiding" in the sense of outsiders invading a corporation to force change (like barbarians?). Anyway it has since become respectable and regulated so it has a positivist description "investment activism". I think since this hedge fund has made some activist positions, that those should be described. It's notable IMO and a step beyond (mere) investing. -- GreenC 02:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought activism was implicit in the wording I used: "issued reports explaining why he thought the company was overvalued and placed fair value ...", but don't let me stop you from changing it if you think that isn't clear enough. (I refuse to be the owner!) But it's beyond any doubt that we must avoid giving the impression that Lemelson's actions or commentaries were the sole causes for the price changes, which is what the wording that I removed implied, and which is what Ortho appears to have been trying to do throughout. —SMALLJIM  16:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
"issued reports explaining why he thought the company was overvalued and placed fair value ..." is standard investor "talking a book" but I don't believe is defined as activism. Activism is when a direct change in the company is made as a result of pressure by the investor. It's a different level of participation. Lets say you think the CEO of a company should be replaced. You can issue reports explaining your position. Or, you can buy 10% of the stock and demand the board replace the CEO otherwise you will do something that causes discomfort to the board (call a vote etc). The former is what 99% do through OpEds or blogs or PRs -- the later is less common and more significant assuming a change is made. In the case of WWE:
"Lemelson Capital then called on WWE's Board of Directors to intervene and replace the company's executive management team, or pursue a sale of the company"
That's activist investing. It's unclear though if this phone call resulted in the share price recovering, or if it was the "Attorney General Charles Foti announced that his law firm would begin an investigation into whether WWE had violated state or federal securities law", and how either of those resulted in the share price going UP. There is a certain amount of original research stringing together divergent facts in a way to make it look like Lemelson was responsible. More research needed, I'll take a look. -- GreenC 17:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, yes I agree there is a difference there that I hadn't recognised. But to take it to the extreme, if I bought one share in WWE and wrote an open letter to the Chief Exec asking him to resign because he was ruining the company, I'd be an activist shareholder – must try that just for the kudos :) Sensibly though: as that article says "a fairly small stake (less than 10% of outstanding shares) may be enough to launch a successful campaign". At its current price WWE's market cap is $1.3bn. So even if LCM employed its entire $20m fund that would only be about 1.5%, so we're really talking a sub-1% stake. Was that enough to make him noticed by the management, to warrant calling him an activist in this instance? I have doubts.
Using the proper definition of the term, then, it seems that the only other company he tried activism on is Kulicke & Soffa Industries, in which LCM appears to have accumulated a larger proportion of the company. May well be a warranted description there.  —SMALLJIM  17:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


I'm struggling with another issue at present: what should we do about the Geospace Technologies section? There's no doubt that the share price increased in Oct/Nov 2014 as the reference says, but as a look at a graph for NASDAQ:GEOS (e.g. on Yahoo) shows, it was only temporary and the price has since slid from around $30 down to $10-odd today. In the Amvona Fund half year report for 2015 (published on in August) Lemelson says he's increased his stake in the company to almost 5%, making it the second largest position in the fund's portfolio (see p.3). He says he's waiting for the upturn in the oil & gas industry which will benefit GEOS.

This represents a big loss on paper, so it's completely unreasonable that the only content in the article should be about a small short-lived increase – which he didn't take advantage of. BUT I don't think any source has commented on this paper loss (he isn't going to publicise it, is he?), so I wonder if we should include anything about GEOS at all. Either we remove it, or we include the full picture to date relying on the primary source. And if we do tell the whole story, then why aren't we including Apple which is the largest holding in the fund? Or the other shares that he's talked about in his annual reports?

It's because of one-sided media reporting such as this that I suggested above that we should restrict the content to broad details of the company, not its dealings (and, I'll now add, especially not open positions). There's an element of WP:RECENTISM here too.  —SMALLJIM  22:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Lemelson has a history of not disclosing its bad trades/returns as noted by the Forbes article. -- GreenC 05:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
As anyone would – but he does stand to make a good profit if GEOS returns to the high prices it has reached more than once before. I think it's right to remove it from the article now anyway.  —SMALLJIM  13:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Lumber Liquidators[edit]

And so it goes on... I can't find any evidence that LCM has held shares or shorted Lumber Liquidators (LL). None of the media sources that I've seen say so, not do they include the usual disclosure (in fact this from Amvona in Dec '15 has a disclosure saying no positions were held then). LL isn't mentioned in the body of the Fund's reports either. So if LCM hasn't held a position in the company, I don't think it belongs in this article. If it's worth mentioning at all, I guess the best fit would be in the Social commentary section of Emmanuel Lemelson.  —SMALLJIM  13:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it.  —SMALLJIM  11:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal is further justified with Lumber Liquidators in the news again today, the stock is "cratering".[7] Lemelson's call was a particularly bad one, not that anyone is paying attention. -- GreenC 16:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)